Home

Search

Collections

Journals

About

Contact us

My IOPscience

A Numerical Procedure for Flow Distribution and Pressure Drops for U and Z Type
Configurations Plate Heat Exchangers with Variable Coefficients

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.
2012 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 395 012060
(http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/395/1/012060)
View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 58.68.86.226
This content was downloaded on 26/02/2014 at 07:13

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

6th European Thermal Sciences Conference (Eurotherm 2012)

Journal of Physics: Conference Series 395 (2012) 012060

IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/395/1/012060

A Numerical Procedure for Flow Distribution and Pressure

Drops for U and Z Type Configurations Plate Heat
Exchangers with Variable Coefficients
R. Lpez, A. Lecuona, R. Ventas, C. Vereda.
Grupo de Investigacin ITEA. Departamento de Ingeniera Trmica y de Fluidos,
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Av. de la Universidad 30, Legans, Madrid,
Espaa. Tel: +34 916246224 Fax: +34 916249430
ralope1@ing.uc3m.es, lecuona@ing.uc3m.es; rventas@ing.uc3m.es,
cvereda@ing.uc3m.es
Abstract. In Plate Heat Exchangers it is important to determine the flow distribution and
pressure drops, because they affect directly the performance of a heat exchanger [1]. This work
proposes an incompressible, one-dimensional, steady state, discrete model allowing for
variable overall momentum coefficients to determine these magnitudes. The model consists on
a modified version of the Bajura and Jones [2] model for dividing and combining flow
manifolds. The numerical procedure is based on the finite differences approximation approach
proposed by Datta and Majumdar [3]. A linear overall momentum coefficient distribution is
used in the dividing manifold, but the model is not limited to linear distributions. Comparisons
are made with experimental, numerical and analytical data, yielding good results.

1. Introduction
Manifold flow distributed systems are extensively used in a wide range of engineering applications.
Among them we can mention: Plate heat exchangers, micro channel heat exchangers, fuel cells, solar
collectors, etc. In these devices, where two manifolds are interconnected with several channels,it is
important to determine the flow distribution and pressure drops through each channel between both
manifolds, because they affect the efficiency and performance of the system [1] and are a basic
framework for further thermal analysis.
The problem of exactly determining these magnitudes is a difficult task since the flow is 3dimensional, of elliptic character and, in some cases, can be transient depending on the operating
conditions. The system has to be modelled in such a way that the information obtained represents with
accuracy the real flow in a reasonable computing time. In the past fifty years the problem has been
studied using three different approaches [4];(i) computational fluid dynamics (CFD), (ii) analytical
models and (iii) discrete models. The CFD approach consists in solving 2-D or 3-D momentum,
energy, mass and state equations, with turbulence models for closing the problem. This model
provides the most detailed flow and offers the advantage of not requiring knowing in advance the loss
associated to the flow turning between manifold and channel neither the overall momentum nor
friction coefficients that consider the irreversibilities associated with separated flow. However, the
computational cost and empiricism of the turbulence models are limiting factors of this kind of
approach.

Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd

6th European Thermal Sciences Conference (Eurotherm 2012)

Journal of Physics: Conference Series 395 (2012) 012060

IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/395/1/012060

On the other hand, analytical and discrete approaches rely on 1-D formulations considering mean
values of velocities and pressure at each section, taking advantage of the slenderness of the manifold
and channel tubing. Obviously, the flow is far away from being 1-D, so it is necessary to introduce
well founded coefficients to ensure that the 1-D flow approaches the real flow. The analytical models
are particular cases of the governing equations of some discrete models. These analytical models give
the designer a simplified view on how the fluid is distributed among channels and to estimate the
pressure losses, but no analytical solution has been found for the case when the coefficients are
correlated with the flow variables. In this scenario, discrete models incorporate the capability to solve
problems with variable coefficients of any kind. This, jointly with the development of numerical
algorithms and the nowadays computational power available make this kind of approach a very
promising tool for analyzing and optimizing manifold systems.
Another factor influencing the velocity and pressure distributions is the arrangement type; the two
basic ones are the U and Z type. The difference between them is how the fluid exits the manifold;
as Figure 1 shows.
Z

a)

b)

Figure 1. Manifold distribution systems arrangement of conduits, with seven identical

channels between two manifolds. The header (divider) in the lower part a) Type U, b) Type Z.
2. Previous work
In the open literature there is ample experimental, theoretical and numerical work done to determine
the flow distribution and pressure drops in manifolds. Kubo and Ueda [5], Zeisser [6], and McNown
[7] are examples of experimental on combining and/or dividing manifolds. Kubo and Ueda [5] studied
the pressure drop in dividing manifolds and developed some formulae to calculate the flow rate
through each channel and the loss coefficients (D and C) associated with lateral turning. They also
observed that the mass flow distribution in each channel is almost independent of the Reynolds
number at the inlet. Zeisser [6] and McNown [7] made experimental measurements to determine the
pressure change coefficient (), (see Eq. 1 for details).They found that this coefficient is almost
constant in a dividing manifold and it is insensitive to channel/manifold velocities and diameters ratio,
but it can increase about 20% when the spacing between channels decreases. They also measured this
coefficient for a combining manifold, but in this case, the interaction between the fluid streams is
different and more complex; as a result, the pressure change coefficient is highly dependent on the
channel/conduit hydraulic diameter ratio.
Considering the flow as 1-D, a straightforward use of the Bernoulli theorem is generally not suitable
because it is not posible to establish steady stream lines where the energy is conserved. To avoid this
difficulty, some researchers have employed differential equations formulations that arise from
applying momentum conservation in a control volume. Some of these approaches can be found in
Markland [8] and Acrivos et al. [9] just to mention a few. In some cases these formulations have
analytical solutions, corresponding to the analytical models commented in the introduction section. If
these solutions are not possible, is necessary to obtain approximate solutions under numerical
schemes, and these are called discrete models.
Among the analytical models that have been built for manifold flows, one of the more extended
models is the one proposed by Bassiouny and Martin [10, 11] who found an analytical solution to the
non-friction flow in the manifolds. This work introduced the characteristic parameter m2 that
quantifies the flow behaviour; the solutions found were for both, U and Z type configurations. Later
on, Wang [12, 13] also found analytical solutions for both configurations, but considering the
manifold friction term. In the two analytical methods mentioned above, a common hypothesis is used:
2

6th European Thermal Sciences Conference (Eurotherm 2012)

Journal of Physics: Conference Series 395 (2012) 012060

IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/395/1/012060

the flow distribution system is considered as an infinite succession of channels in a continuum fashion.
This over-predicts the pressure drop, due to the lateral turning loss coefficient (Cd). More recently,
Wang [4] developed a numerical procedure with the analytical solution for friction in the manifold
[12,13] using a predictor-corrector strategy to obtain distributions allowing variable friction factors
and pressure change coefficient (), see Eq. 1. In addition, Bajura and Jones [14] first proposed models
considering discrete channels for both combining and dividing lateral inlets. They also offered an
extensive compilation of experimental work, introducing the pressure change coefficient in the
models, wich take into account the non-conservation of axial linear momentum in the manifolds.
Subsequently, they developed a model for U and Z type configurations [2]. They also performed an
experimental research on combining and dividing manifold systems. One of the most useful results in
this work was the measurement of the overall momentum coefficient (CT) in Eq. 1, which quantifies
the axial linear momentum transported through the channel, establishing this parameter as
1.050.05and 2.660.05, for dividing and combining manifold respectively. In a further study, Datta
and Majumdar [3] proposed a discrete model via the finite differences method based on the nonvariable overall momentum coefficient version of the Bajura and Jones model [2]. Their results show
good agreement with experimental data.
3. Present work
The present work proposes a 1-D, steady-state and parabolic discrete model introducing the novelty of
allowing for variable overall momentum coefficient and friction factors in the manifold. The
discretization is made via finite differences method. The coupling of velocities and pressure is
implemented with a pressure correction (SIMPLE) algorithm, Patankar [15]. Another feature is that
the equations and boundary conditions are expressed with the use of the auxiliary functions , and .
They allow a compact formulation for Z and U distribution system types.
3.1. Overall momentum coefficient and friction factor
Inside a manifold, the flow is not uniform in every section, as assumed by the 1-D simplification. In
fact, it has a certain transversal profile. The lower velocity near the walls due to viscous effects
implies less energy, so when the fluid passes a channel inlet, the fluid with less axial velocity will
enter the channel. That entrance is not instantly parallel to the channel axis because of inertia, so part
of the upstream axial energy is transferred to the mass that enters the channels. In addition, an error
can be made in quantifying the upstream axial momentum because of the uniform velocity profile
simplification. So in order to correct this, a coefficient is introduced for the header flow; the so-called
header momentum coefficient () or simply the Boussinesq coefficient. Mathematically, the header
momentum, pressure change () and overall momentum coefficient (CT) are defined as:
1
1
= 2 W 2 dA =
Wc ( Ac ) U c dAc
W A Ac
W U c A c Ac

1
CT = ( 2 )
(1)
2
It is important to mention that =0 implies that the manifold flow reaches the maximum static pressure
recovery downstream the channel inlet.
By observations made by Bajura and Jones [2], the overall momentum coefficient CT is approximately
fixed when the channel/manifold diameter ratio is greater than 0.5. Those values in CT are 1.05 and
2.66 for dividing and combining manifolds respectively, but in order to explore a possible
enhancement, in the present work we used a linear variation of CT from 1.3 to 1.05 between z = 0 and z
= 0.2 to take into account the readjustment of the velocity profile after the first few laterals channel
inlets [14]. The values of d/dz are obtained differentiating Eq. 1 assuming that is constant and equal
to 0.8 [6,7]. In the combining manifold, the value of CT is fixed to 2.66 [14] and the values of are
calculated from the experimental values given by McNown [7] and Zeisser [6]. It is relevant to notice
that the present formulation is not restricted to a linear distribution of CT; and other kind of functions

6th European Thermal Sciences Conference (Eurotherm 2012)

Journal of Physics: Conference Series 395 (2012) 012060

IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/395/1/012060

can be introduced. The friction factors in the manifolds and the channels have been determined with
the Blasius formula for the manifold and the Rao and Sunden [1] correlation for the channels:
(2)
f c = 21.41 Rec 0.301
f = 0.3164 Re0.25
(1)
Where Rec is the Channel Reynolds number based on twice the plate spacing.
4. Mathematical formulation
For the mathematical formulation here proposed, steady-state, 1-D and incompressible flow has benn
assumed. The analysis uses the control volume shown in Fig. 2 where, the total mass enters through
section A, some fluid goes through section B and the remaining enters the channel through section C
with a certain angle implying components of velocity Wc and Uc. It has been considered that the shear
stress at the walls can be approximated by the Darcy-Weisbach formulation (w=fW2/8). With these
assumptions, applying conservation of mass and linear momentum, the governing equations in
dimensionless form are:
d CT w2
dC
dp L f S d 2
w2 T =
+
(3)
w
dz
dz
dz 8 A
dz
uc Ac
dw
=

(4)
z A
dz
Equation 4 is a modified version of the Bajura and Jones model, for further details about the derivation
of the original version of Eqs. 4 and 5, see Bajura and Jones [2]. The modification consists in
introducing inside the convective term the overall momentum coefficient (CT). To do so, the chain rule
is applied to the original convective term. The introduction of this factor inside the convective term
allows an easy integration over the control volume when it is variable.

Z
P(z)

W
INLET

W(z)

W(z+z)

Z
P(z+z)

INLET

C.V.

P(z)

W(z)

Wc

Ac

Uc

Uc

Wc

C.V.

Wc

P*(z)
W*(z+z)

C.V.

Wc

Uc

OUTLET

Uc

Ac

W*(z)

P(z+z)

C.V.

Uc

A*

W(z+z)

Wc

W0*

P*(z)

P*(z+z)

A*

Uc

W*(z)

W*(z+z)

P*(z+z)

a)

W0*
OUTLET

C.V.

b)

Figure 2. Combining and dividing flows control volumes for: a) Type U, b) Type Z
4.1. Boundary conditions
The velocities can be specified at both boundaries, for either a dividing or a combining manifold. In
particular, the pressure can be specified only in z=0 for the dividing manifold and in z=1 for the
combining manifold for type U or z=0 for type Z configuration in the combining manifold. The
generalized boundary conditions for velocity and pressure in dimensionless form are:
1
1
1
A
A
w ( z = 0, , ) = (1 + ) + (1 )
w ( z = 1, , ) = (1 + ) (1 )

2
2
4
A*
A*
p ( z = 0, dividing ) = 0

p* ( z = 0, combining ) = 0 if Z type
*
p ( z = 1, combining ) = 0 if U type

6th European Thermal Sciences Conference (Eurotherm 2012)

Journal of Physics: Conference Series 395 (2012) 012060

IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/395/1/012060

4.2. Auxiliary integer functions and

The function defines the direction of the flow respect to the z axis and the function determines if
mass enters or leaves the control volume for the mass conservation equation. Those functions take
values of 1 or -1 and they are defined as:

= ( 1)
= ( 1)
2 if Dividing Manifold
2 if U Type
=
1 if Combining Manifold
1 if Z Type

2 if Dividing Manifold
1 if Combining Manifold

(5)

4.3. Velocity in the channels

To solve Eqs. 4 and 5, a first assumption on the magnitude of channel velocity was made, as
commented on sub-dection 5.3. Therefore, in every iteration level, the velocity in channels must be
recalculated. For that purpose, applying conservation of linear momentum in the channels, the channel
velocity can be calculated as:

( uc )i = Cd {2 ( pi pi* )}

1/2

(6)

f L
Where Cd is the channel discharge coefficient, defined as: Cd = c c +
d c i

j
j =1

1/2

5. Discrete equations and numerical procedure

The finite differences approximation of the momentum equation is obtained by integrating Eqs. 3 and
4 over the control volume shown in Fig. 3. The source terms (friction and overall momentum
coefficient correction terms) are approximated using a Taylor series expansion around the iteration
k. The other details can be found in Datta and Majumdar [3]. The discrete form of the equation is as
follows:
k
Ae wek = Aw wwk + AEe wEe
+ A ( pP pE ) + Sc
(7)
W here

Aw = ( C T

) P A w wk 1

AEe = ( C T

L f S d k 1
Sc =
+
we
dz
8A

Pp

We

Ae = Aw + AEe + S p

L f S d k 1
Sp =
+
we
dz
4A

Uci+2

Uci+1
Wci+1

Uci
Wci
Ww

) E A wek 1

Uci
Wci

Wci+2
W Ee

PE

Ww

We

Pp

a)

b)

Figure 3. Staggered grid for a) Momentum, b) Conservation of mass.

5.1. Velocity-pressure coupling and pressure correction equation
A straightforward use of Eq. 5 is not suitable because the pressure does not appear explicitly, so
another equation must be employed to guarantee the conservation of mass. To do so, the semi-implicit
method for pressure linked equations (SIMPLE) algorithm is used, Patankar [15]. The resulting form
of the pressure correction is as follows:
A
(8)
( De + Dw ) pP = De pE + Dw pW c ( uc )i + ww* we*
A

Where

De =

AEe
Ae

Dw =

Aw
Ae

6th European Thermal Sciences Conference (Eurotherm 2012)

Journal of Physics: Conference Series 395 (2012) 012060

5.2. Pressure and velocity correction equation

we = we* + De ( pP pE )

IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/395/1/012060

pP = p 'P + pP

(9)

5.3. Numerical procedure

The numerical procedure is based on a predictor-corrector strategy. The idea is to obtain solutions for
velocities and pressure for fixed coefficients. Then, CT and are recalculated and the process is
repeated until the flow coefficients converge. Briefly, the algorithm is as follows:
a) Start with an initial guess for w , uc and .
b) Solve Eq. 8 to get w* and with this value solve the pressure correction equation, Eq. 9. In
order to accelerate the algorithm, the linear systems of Eqs. 8 and 9 are solved with the
TDMA algorithm.
c) Correct axial velocities and pressures, Eq. 10.
d) Correct channel velocities with Eq. 7. Check if conservation of mass is fulfilled; if not, correct
channel velocity, [13].
e) Recalculate CT ; if CTk +1 CTk tol finish, else go to step b) and repeat the process.

6. Numerical experiments
This section offers a comparison of the present model with experimental and analytical results. There
is lack of experimental data for channel velocity and pressure distributions in plate heat exchangers.
These devices can be seen as a manifold system with high lateral resistance, since; the friction in the
channels is in the order of 50 times the friction in the manifolds. Because of that, the first case of our
study consists in the numerical replication of the high lateral resistance experiment made by Bajura
and Jones [14]. For this numerical experiment we present the dimensionless pressure distributions (Pc,
Pd and P, see Eq. 11). The comparison is also made with the numerical results with constant
coefficients of Datta and Majumdar [3]. Later on, the dimensionless channel velocity (uc) distribution
is compared with the analytical solution of Bassiouny and Martin [10, 11], obtaining the characteristic
flow parameter m2 as the solutions of Eq. (12) or (13). The characteristics of this case are given in
Table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics for the high lateral resistance experiment (case 1).




dc D
l D
Cd
Exp. H
-1
8.98 ms
0.106 m 1.56 m
0.375
2.55
12.2
0.4048
The second and third case of study in this paper consist in the numerical replication of the experiments
made by Rao and Sunden [1], in the second case the influence of the number of channels and mean
channel Reynolds number is studied. Finally, the third case is the study of the dimensionless channel
velocity (in respect to the mean channel velocity) distribution for port diameters of 70 mm and 35 mm
and inflow conditions of 3.6 Ls-1 and 0.13 Ls-1. The characteristics for these two cases are presented
in Table 2. In all cases the study was made for both U and Z type configurations.
Table 2. Geometric characteristics of the plate for cases 2 and 3.
70 - 35 mm
Port diameter 
0.6 m
Vertical distance between ports 
60
Chevron angle
2.9 mm
Spacing between plates 
Hydraulic diameter of the channels
5.8 mm
0.4 mm
Plate width 
Number of plates (N)
10, 15 or 18
p * pexit
p pexit
p p*
pc =
pd =
p =
(10)
pinlet pexit
pinlet pexit
max [ p p *]

6th European Thermal Sciences Conference (Eurotherm 2012)

Journal of Physics: Conference Series 395 (2012) 012060

Where:

A
m
pinlet p *exit =

for U type

2 N Ac tanh ( m )
2
2
2
c A m
1 sec h ( m )

=
+ 1 + 2


2 N Ac tanh ( m )
m tanh ( m )

pinlet p *exit

IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/395/1/012060

2 Ac N

c A

(11)

for Z type

(12)

Pc, Pd, P

7. Discussion of results
Figs. 4.a and 4.b show the dimensionless pressure for U and Z type for case 1. For both of them, the
predictions are in good agreement with experimental and numerical data, but, in figure 4b the
numerical results with constant coefficients (Datta and Majumdar) in the dividing manifold, pressure
distribution are slightly more in accordance with experimental data. One reason for this discrepancy is
the linear overall distribution function assumed in this work, the real form of this function is of
different shape and therefore must be established empirically. Fig. 5 shows the dimensionless channel
velocity distribution, calculated with the present model, and the analytical solution of the Bassiouny
and Martin model. The analytical velocity profiles are calculated with the value of the flow parameter
m2 determined with the numerical pressure distribution (Figs. 4.a and 4.b). In these figures a greater
deviation in the Z type configuration is observed. The deviation can be in part because the analytical
model does not take into account the friction losses in the manifolds. However, the behaviour of the
present numerical model corresponds to the one predicted by the analytical one.
1.6
PRESENT WORK
PRESENT WORK
Pd
DATTA & MAJUMDAR
DATTA & MAJUMDAR
Pd
1.2
EXPERIMENTAL
Cd=0.4155

Cd=0.4155

Pc, Pd, P

EXPERIMENTAL

1.2

Pc

0.8
0.8

0.4

0.4

Pc
0

0
2

10

12

14

16

18

a)

20

10

12

14

16

18

b)

20

Figure 4 Pressure profiles for case 1, a) U type, b) Z type.

0.6

0.6

Uc

Uc

Present Work
Bassiouny and Martin

Present Work
Bassiouny and Martin

0.45
0.4

0.3

0.2
4

12

a)

16

0.15

20

12

16

b)

20

Figure 5. Channel velocity distribution comparison with analytical models a) U type, b) Z type.

Fig.6 presents the total pressure drop in the modelled heat exchanger and again the deviation from
experimental results is larger for the Z type configuration but it is also shown that this difference is not

6th European Thermal Sciences Conference (Eurotherm 2012)

Journal of Physics: Conference Series 395 (2012) 012060

IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/395/1/012060

50

70

p0-p0*

p0-p0*

only affected by the configuration type, but also by the number of channels and the channel Reynolds
number (as a consequence of the inflow Reynolds number). Finally, Figs. 7 and 8, show that for port
diameters of 70 mm the model reproduces almost perfectly the experiments but for diameters of 35
mm, predictions of the channel velocity distribution slightly differ from the experimental
measurements. This occurs because in the calculation of the lateral discharge coefficient, the pressure
loss due to sudden expansion or contraction in the channels was neglected; and for lower port diameter
this expansion or contraction is greater, so the velocity in the first channels and the last ones for U and
Z type configurations respectively are greater than the prediction made. From the results obtained it
can be said that the present model reproduces with a good degree of accuracy the experiments.
Moreover a model with variable coefficients has been obtained, but in order to improve the model it is
necessary to find either analytically or experimentally the form of the overall momentum coefficient
distribution along the dividing manifold.
Present Work
Exp. Rao & Sunden 2006
60

10 Channels

Present Work
Exp. Rao & Sunden 2006

40

10 Channels
50

40

30

15 Channels
30

15 Channels

20

20

18 Channels
10

10
1000

2000

3000

a)

4000

Rec

5000

1000

2000

3000

b)

4000

Rec

5000

Figure 6. Dimensionless total pressure drops with a port diameter of 70 mm: a) U type, b) Z type.
1.2

Uc

1.2

Uc

Exp. Rao & Sunden 2006 (70 mm)

Exp. Rao & Sunden 2006 (35 mm)
Present Work (70 mm)
1.1

Q=0.13 L/s

Exp. Rao & Sunden 2006 (70 mm)

Exp. Rao & Sunden 2006 (35 mm)
Present Work (70 mm)

1.1

Present Work (35 mm)

Present Work (35 mm)

Q=3.6 L/s
0.9

0.9
0

a)

10

15

b)

10

15

Figure 7. Dimensionless channel velocity distribution for Type U with 15 channels: a) Q=3.6 Ls-1, b) Q=0.13 Ls-1
1.3

Uc

1.3

Exp. Rao & Sunden 2006 (70 mm)

Exp. Rao & Sunden 2006 (35 mm)
Present Work (70 mm)

1.2

Uc

Exp. Rao & Sunden 2006 (70 mm)

Exp. Rao & Sunden 2006 (35 mm)
Present Work (70 mm)

1.2

Present Work (35 mm)

1.1

1.1

Present Work(35 mm)

0.9

0.9

Q=0.13 L/s

Q=3.6 L/s
0.8

0.8
0

a)

10

15

b)

10

15

Figure 8. Dimensionless channel velocity distribution for Type Z with 15 channels: a) Q=3.6 Ls-1, b) Q=0.13 Ls-1

8. Conclusions
On the grounds of the detailed comparison shown, it can be concluded that with the model developed:

6th European Thermal Sciences Conference (Eurotherm 2012)

Journal of Physics: Conference Series 395 (2012) 012060

IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/395/1/012060

a) The predictions are in accordance with experimental data and are especially accurate for U
type configurations.
b) The velocity distributions are in accordance with the velocity predicted by the Bassiouny
models.
c) To further improve the model it is desirable to find an analytical or experimental model for the
overall momentum coefficient distribution along the dividing manifold.

References
[1] Rao B, Sunden B, Das S 2005 An experimental and theoretical Investigation of the effect of flow
maldistribution on the thermal performance of Plate Heat Exchangers J. Heat Transfer, 127(3), 33245.
[2] Bajura R A, Jones E H 1976 Flow distribution manifolds J. Fluids Eng. 98(4) 654-665.
[3] Datta A B, Majumdar A K 1980 Flow distribution in parallel and reverse flow manifolds Int. J.
Heat & Fluid Flow 2(4) 253-262.
[4] Wang J 2011 Theory of flow distribution manifolds Chemical engineering science 168 1331-45.
[5] Kubo T, Ueda T 1969 On the characteristics of divided flow and confluent flow in headers Bulletin
of JSME, 12(52) 802-809.
[6] Zeisser M H Summary Report of Single-Tube Branch and Multi-Tube Branch Water Flow Tests
conducted by the University of Connecticut Pratt and Whitney aircraft division, United aircraft
corporation, Report No PWAC-231 USAEC Contract AT(11-1)-229, May 1963.
[7] McNown J S 1954 Mechanics of manifold flow Transactions ASCE 119 1103-42.
[8] Markland E 1959 Analysis of flow from pipe manifolds Engineering 187 150-151.
[9] Acrivos A, Babcock B D and Pigford R L 1959 Flow Distribution in manifolds Chemical
engineering science 10 112-124.
[10] Bassiouny M K, Martin H, 1984 Flow distribution and pressure drop in plate heat exchangers-I: U
type arrangement Chemical engineering science 39(4) 693-700.
[11] Bassiouny M K, Martin H, 1984 Flow distribution and pressure drop in plate heat exchangers-II:
Z type arrangement Chemical engineering science 39(4) 701-704.
[12] Wang J, 2008 Pressure drop and flow distribution in parallel-channel fuel cell stacks: U-type
arrangement. Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy, 33(21) 6339-6350.
[13] Wang J, 2010 Pressure drop and flow distribution in parallel-channel configurations of fuel cells:
Z-type arrangement. Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy, 35(11) 5498-5509
[14] Bajura R A, Jones E H 1971 A model for flow distribution in manifolds Journal of Engineering
for Power Fluids Eng Trans ASME 93(1) 7-12.
[15] Patankar S 1980 Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow McGraw Hill.
Nomenclature
A

Conduit area (m2)

A,D,S

Discrete equation coefficients

Re Reynolds number


/
S
Perimeter

CT

Overall momentum coefficient.

Uc

Cd

Lateral discharge coefficient

U c Mean channel velocity

Conduit hydraulic diameter (m)

uc

dc

Channel hydraulic diameter (m)

Friction factor

Subscript

Head loss coefficient

Channel, combining
manifold

Dividing manifold

Dimensionless channel
velocity (Uc/W0)

i, j

Index

Axial velocity (ms-1)

W, E, P

channel velocity (ms-1)

(=Uc,i/N)

w Dimensionless Axial
velocity (=W/W0)

w,e,Ee

Cardinal location for

scalar variables
Cardinal location for
velocity

6th European Thermal Sciences Conference (Eurotherm 2012)

Journal of Physics: Conference Series 395 (2012) 012060

IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/395/1/012060

Lateral resistance coefficient

Axial coordinate ( m )

Length of manifold

Dimensionless axial
coordinate (=Z/L)

Superscripts

Lc

Length of channel

m2

Flow characteristic parameter

Number of channels

Dimensional pressure (Pa)

Dimensionless pressure

   /
 

Greek symbols
Header momentum
coefficient
Pressure change
coefficient.
combining and dividing
functions
Finite difference

10

Inlet conditions

(*)

Iteration level index

Approximate
solution, comb. man.

()

Mean value

( ')

Correction

Arrangement
functions